So Many Games, So Little Time…

« Prev Post: Following the Money: An Economic Look at the Widening Games Audience

» Next Post:The Replay Value of History

So Many Games, So Little Time…

Mon, Jun 30, 2008

Can there be too much of a good thing when it comes to new game releases? Columnist Michael Zenke seems to think so. Over at GameSetWatch, Zenke has penned an engaging opinion that will resonate strongly with gamers -- like myself -- who are frustrated by the recent plethora of quality titles. But is the fault truly with the games, or those who play them?

Despite some lingering worries that the rise of so-called casual gaming spells doom for the hardcore enthusiast, 2008 continues to prove those fears unfounded with the release of MGS4 and GTA4, both titles that actually attempt to raise the bar for immersive interactive experiences to come. But if you'd rather not shoot people (or steal their outmoded transportation) there are an unprecedented number of different ways to do so. With gaming finally having reached mainstream acceptance, each of those myriad ways has a vast collection of followers with whom to interact. In short, it is a good day for gamers.

But as the gaming audience grows, so too does the number of titles produced to meet those gamers' frothing demand:

Since the Xbox 360 launched at the end of 2005, there have been 683 games released to the platform. There have been 844 Nintendo DS games released since late 2004, and some 331 PlayStation 3 games dropped since late 2006. That’s an average of four games a week, every week, for both the 360 and DS. The PS3 averages more like three games a week.

Having cited the above statistic, and taking a page from Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice, Zenke reflects that while multiple options are desirable, too much choice actually hurts. Certainly it hurts the pocketbook...

But how can you choose, realistically, between Halo 3 and Mass Effect? How can you choose between BioShock and Puzzle Quest? There were so *many* good games released last year that you couldn’t.

You couldn’t go into a store and buy Call of Duty 4 without *having* to pick up Super Mario Galaxy. Can’t snag Rock Band without that Burning Crusade box. And - seriously - can you even still be called a gamer if you didn’t play at least one of the offerings from The Orange Box?

...but it might hurt also hurt gaming as an art form as well.

With so many games released per year, the gamer demographic growing older every year, and consumer expectation driving each individual title to deliver hour after hour of gameplay, Zenke asserts that even as gamers accrue the wealth required to afford the influx of quality game titles, "the Western lifestyle precludes the time to play more than a handful." Then, driven to pursue the latest and greatest, gamers abandon even this handful -- and in so doing, lose their ability to converse intelligently about games.

What we’re left with is a medium where the vast majority of the audience has only a flimsy grasp on the subject. They don’t know about the games of the past because they don’t have time to play them. They don’t know about the games of the future because there are too many to play.

I'm no stranger to what Zenke terms the "lust for the new." Though I fondly remember my college victories over the likes of Ace Combat 5, Lunar: Silver Star Story and many, many more, in the months and days since I've become an upstanding, tax-paying citizen I've found my time for games has been severely limited. On PS2 alone, my gaming backlog includes God Hand, Odin Sphere, Gran Turismo 4, Nightshade, Ico and Okami -- and there's an unopened copy of Final Fantasy XII on my shelf. It pains me to say I've yet to touch the fourth iterations of either Grand Theft Auto or Metal Gear Solid. And, although I'm proud to say Portal and all current portions of the Half-Life 2 saga are under my belt, Team Fortress 2 has been sadly all but forgotten in lieu of late-night Call of Duty 4.

What does this say about me as a gamer? More importantly, what does this say about me as a journalist? I'm being paid to stay on top of my game (no pun intended), yet here I am unable to provide a valid opinion on the most important sequels of the year. In paragraph two of this article, there's a very good reason I write that MGS4 and GTA4 "attempt" to raise the bar, even though I've heard countless times that they do -- I simply haven't experienced them for myself, and I would be lax to project differently.

huge game collection

Then again, you could fill swimming pools with the titles I haven't played, if you look at things from a historical context. Sure, it might seem difficult to choose between the nearly 2000 contemporary titles available on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Nintendo DS, not to mention those on PC, Wii and PSP -- but you have to remember that these are merely stacked on top of previous generations of games. Individuals who begin gaming tomorrow will also have to consider the massive libraries of the PS2, GameCube, Xbox, Nintendo 64, Game Boy Advance, PS1, SNES, Genesis, etc. Sure, you may not be able to find all the classics at retail, but between backwards compatibility, digital distribution and emulation most if not all important titles have been preserved for future generations.

Also, as much as I personally strive to fill in the holes in my gaming 'education,' and as often as I recommend that others do the same, I'm of the belief that you don't need to have experienced everything the increasingly broad field of gaming has to offer -- even all of its "must-play" titles -- in order to hold an informed conversation. Does the fact that I've never played any game in the Thief series prevent me from adding my two cents to discussions of stealth games, considering I've played Metal Gear Solid, Splinter Cell, Tenchu, Hitman and Deus Ex? Would I be unable to appreciate Resident Evil 4 having never played its predecessors?

RE4 Chainsaw

Of course not.

But in the end, Zenke's thesis falls apart for neither of these reasons, but the fact that his perspective is incredibly narrow. For dedicated, hardcore gamers who own multiple consoles, it may indeed be difficult to choose between Halo 3 and Mass Effect, BioShock and Puzzle Quest, Call of Duty 4 and Super Mario Galaxy, Rock Band and The Orange Box. But an individual who likes puzzles has a clear-cut decision: they buy Puzzle Quest. The platformer enthusiast picks Super Mario Galaxy. The musically inclined take Rock Band. Sure, if you're breaking it down by genre, 2007 -- or as I like to say, "the year of the shooter" -- poses a problem for the pocketbooks of FPS fans, but they can simple break things down using their artistic sensibility, gravitating towards any of art deco, alien technology, or gritty realism. But why even bother with genre? The beauty of modern consumer choice is that gamers no longer need to be hardcore, or even belong to a well-defined niche, to have a brilliant triple-A title to call their own.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a copy of last year's God of War II that desperately needs my attention.

Call of Duty 4, casual gaming, consumer expectations, Hardcore Gaming, mainstream gaming, Michael Zenke, plethora, Portal

This post was written by:

Sean Hollister - who has written 825 posts on GameCyte.

Contact the author

« Prev Post: Following the Money: An Economic Look at the Widening Games Audience

» Next Post:The Replay Value of History

0 Comments For This Post

2 Trackbacks For This Post

The Replay Value of History | GameCyte Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
[...] industry, in the context of recent analyses, a number of trends have come under scrutiny. Despite a recent wealth of triple-A titles, there is still an undercurrent of customer dissatisfaction with what is perceived as a lack of [...]
link love 07-04-08 | words Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
[...] Too many games? Michael Zenke thinks so, Sean Hollister disagrees. [...]

GameCyte